While on the Conference Call:To mute your phone: press: 4*To raise you hand for a question or comment: press: 5*

Use this Forum to contact Team Law;use this link for more: contact information.In conjunction with our Success Network We announced our participation in the Self Made Man Conteston our Facebook and Twitter pages.

What is the new Self Made Man platform?It’s kinda like Netflix, but better.The content and platform will help you change your life, and the world…

It launches: February 20thAnd, to celebrate,they’re giving away over $35,000 in cash and prizes!

I am interested in, and have a question about, the land patent sandwich.

Say an SSCT owns, and is paying taxes on, some real property. He wants to quitclaim the property to an out-of-state legal fiction (corporation, partnership, etc.), privately, with the grantee not agreeing to take on the property tax obligation.

Can the quitclaim deed that's part of the land patent sandwich be used to accomplish this? Is it reasonable to expect that the state will simply try to get the out-of-state legal person to pay property tax anyways, claiming personal jurisdiction under the respective "long arm statutes", then issue tax certificates from the lack of payment, and finally do an in rem foreclosure proceeding to give the real property to someone else?

Mattz:We are a bit curious about the meaning of some of the language you used in your inquiry.

We assumed you were referring to a Social Security Administration created trust when you used the acronym: “SSCT”, as the subject/person that owns a particular property; however, when you next referred to said property owner with the personal pronoun: “He”, we have to wonder about the meaning you attributed to the acronym: “SSCT”. Certainly, “He” is not a personal pronoun that can be used to refer to a trust. The personal pronoun used to refer to a trust would be: “it”.

Given the fact that Corp. U.S. is the sole beneficiary in all SSA created Trusts, we wonder whether such an entity can do anything that can actually be or remain “private”.

Beyond that, your inquiry is based upon a hypothetical situation; however, our Forum’s Rule 10 limits us from addressing hypothetical situations—doing so would be akin to giving advice (see: Forum Rule on Advice); which would also go contrary to our Charter.

Finally, given that:

Our purpose is to help people learn how to learn the law (see: Rule 3);

That we provide that educational service without giving people advice; and,

That our full service is available only to Team Law beneficiaries;

The nature of your inquiry is such that if you were to adjust it to remove its linguistic conflicts and hypothetical content, you would still need to be a Team Law beneficiary to have access to the Team Law beneficiary support necessary to receiving the educational support necessary to resolve the issue that seems to be the point of your inquiry—property tax elimination.

To that end, we can say that anyone with a proper understanding and application of the law can eliminate property taxes; respectively, every branch of government (corporate or otherwise) will acknowledge and support the same.

“Long arm statutes” have nothing to do with the issue.

It never serves anyone well to prognosticate (imagine/predict) a future they do not desire.Though that kind of thought process (imagining a negative future) is a complete waste of energy; it has the effect of turning one’s life down a negative path. The far better mental exercise is to instead predict a future filled with the things you desire. The effect of either exercise is the exact point Earl Nightingale was making with his presentation on: The Strangest Secret; which is an elemental component of our Success Network training.

We hope this information is helpful to you.Tell everybody about Team Law!

Let me briefly address the two concerns (points of curiosity) you had about my post.

I was referring to the Social Security Administration created Trust when using the pronoun "He". I now see that "it" is a more appropriate pronoun regardless of the gender of the trustee. A settlor could easily be a female, and her actions in the settlor capacity could have great impact on the activities of a trust.

When I said the real estate transaction would be private, I meant that the "contract for sale", which is usually where the state statutes require a property tax disclosure, would be hidden or verbal. That way the state can't prove the corporate grantee agreed to pay the tax going forward. The payment I suppose would also be private. I don't see a need to mention in the deed what type of payment it was, even if cash, for bargaining the property appurtenant to the immutable land.

Mattz:Thanks, for the clarification. Especially when we are helping people learn how to learn, it is critical to have such things resolved before proceeding. It also helps people realize that the shortcuts people use in communication models today limits actual communication quite a lot; due to assumptions and presuppositions people generally accept as if they actually understood the mind of other parties.

Respectively, it is not only the more appropriate pronoun, “it” is the only pronoun that could possibly function in such a situation (that is: any situation dealing with a SSCT); because, the gender of the party lending consciousness and physical capacity to the trust’s Trustee office is irrelevant to the nature and capacity of the trust. Given the fact that the Trustee cannot act for itself, we discover the fact that: “Whenever the Trustee acts it is the trust that is acting and not the party lending said Trustee consciousness and physical capacity.” (see: Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole). Respectively, because trusts do not have gender, a trust’s actions cannot possibly be gender specific.

Regarding the contract for sale issue:Just because the terms of a contract for sale are not publicly disclosed, that does not make the details of that sale private. The fact that the SSCT is a Corp. U.S. agency raises questions to the potential of those actions ever being truly private. Non-disclosed is not private. The bottom line: the fact that the SSCT is acting as an agent for Corp. U.S. means that Corp. U.S. has the right to full disclosure and full access to any element of any such transaction—ergo: not private.

Further, we have never seen a statute (and cannot imagine that any such thing could lawfully exist) such as the one you alleged that controls the content of a “contract for sale”; especially, to mandate a property tax component. Should any such thing exist, it would seemingly be quite east to overcome considering the constitutional mandate that no state shall interfere with contracts.

We hope this information is helpful to you.Tell everybody about Team Law!

Here is an example of Corp State statutes controlling the contract for sale in such a way that a disclosure of property tax is mandated by state statute to be in the contract for sale of a real estate transaction:

Mattz:We believe that you may have misunderstood something. Though the link you sent did not provide any specific portion of the code in which any such mandate was found, the page the link loaded did contain eight places where the word “tax” was used; and, in those places we found no mandate that required anyone to have and/or transfer a tax. There was a section regarding ad valorem taxes (which is the label that state puts on property tax); however, there was no requirement for a property tax in that section—only a requirement for (full) disclosure of such a tax if it does exist.

Respectively, we entered the parenthetical “full” to that term, because one of the elements necessary to every contract is: “acceptance of the terms of the agreement between the parties of the contract”; respectively, acceptance requires full disclosure. Thus, if a seller is conveying an agreement to pay a tax on a property in conjunction with the sale, that condition of the sale must be disclosed to the buyer as an elemental part of the agreement. Respectfully, that code merely provides the elements necessary to such a disclosure. It does not however require any such thing when there is no such tax made a part of the agreement.

And, that is where we must stop; because we have once again run into the limitation where to go further you would have to have Team Law beneficiary support.

Thus, again, our point is that requirement for disclosure has nothing to do with the State overrunning its constitutional bounds limiting it from controlling contracts. It is merely providing for the contractual law element of full disclosure; whether the disclosure be within the written terms of the agreement or on a separate instrument. It does not in any way compel that such a tax must either exist or be conveyed—as you had formerly implied.

We hope this information is helpful to you.Tell everybody about Team Law!